From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Fri Apr 18 2003 - 22:59:34 BST
Hi Platt, Johnny Moral, Wim, all:
>> You said:
>>> My creation theory is based,
>>> naturally, on the MOQ and is explained in my "Principles of the MOQ." It
>>> says:
>>>
>>> "Quality is simultaneously an immanent and transcendent moral force. It
>>> created and gave purpose to the world, motivated by the ethical principle
>>> of the "Good" which is its essence."
>>
>> Is this in Lila's Child?
>
> Yes. Chapter 8, page 242.
Platt, I just read it and very much liked it.
I was wondering if the Awareness Principle only applies to humans.
If it can apply more broadly, trying it in with the Awareness Hierarchy
Principle made me think about the following:
Pirsig described cause and effect on the inorganic level as A values
precondition B (which has sounded loony (your word) to everyone I've ever
discussed it with.) I was thinking that an awareness always responds as is
morally expected (hence the address to Johnny) within its highest level of
awareness.
For example, a molecule will never defy the laws of physics (behave
immorally) because it is unaware of physical forces.
You said an animal will defy the laws of physics. (Could you explain what
you meant? I'll continue assuming this is true.) An animal that has only
reached the biological level of awareness is aware of physical forces, but
not biological ones, so never violates biological laws (i.e. behave
biologically immorally). It doesn't know anything about these laws.
A person or animal that is biologically aware but without social awareness
will violate the law of the jungle and physical laws, but will tend do what
is socially expected of him unless he regresses to a lower level. (Here I'm
thinking of Wim's idea of unconscious copying of behavior, not what is
necessarily usually thought of as "society".) He will always reproduce the
copied behavior as best he can. He has no idea why he's doing it. (Since
social laws are not as universal as biological laws and physical laws,
another socially unaware person may see our person's reproduction of copied
behavior as immoral, but from the copier's perspective, he is behaving
morally if he does what his socially expected for his context.)
A person who is socially aware but not intellectually aware will have
conscious motivations for his actions. He always motivate his actions
based on the unconsciously copied rationales that he has accumulated. He
will tend to behave intellectually immorally. He will motivate his actions
with the rationales that are expected of him (within his particular context)
unless he falls back on "irrational" copied behavior or the law of the
jungle.
The intellectually aware person may create new and better rationales by
"thinking about thinking" and seem to be behaving immorally from the
perspective of the person who is not intellectually aware. This person is
still unaware of the possible static patterns he is following but are yet to
be named.
Platt, am I making any sense to you?
Johnny, does this show some understanding of your idea of morality as
expectation or is this a completely different angle than you were going for?
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 18 2003 - 22:58:41 BST